Myles v. Chandler

For the
following reasons, defendants' motion for summary
judgment [40] is denied. At the next hearing, the parties are
to discuss with Judge Johnston the possibility of a
settlement conference.

STATEMENT-OPINION

On
August 28, 2015, plaintiff Eddie H. Myles filed his first
amended § 1983 complaint against defendants Warden Nedra
Chandler and Officer Christopher Thompson [19], alleging that
defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to
protect him from assault by another inmate.

On
September 15, 2016, defendants Warden Chandler and Officer
Thompson filed a joint motion for summary judgment [40],
memorandum in support [41], and Rule 56.1 statement of facts
[42]. Defendants contend that plaintiff's § 1983
claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994), that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of
fact that defendants failed to protect him, and that
defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See
[41]. On October 31, 2016, plaintiff filed his response to
the motion [46], response to the statement of facts [47], and
Rule 56.1 statement of additional facts [48], along with an
additional appendix of exhibits [49]. On November 15, 2016,
defendants filed their reply [52] and response to
plaintiff's additional facts [51].

On
summary judgment, the court construes all facts and draws all
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Schepers v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of
Corrections,691 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2012). The
court does not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of
witness testimony. O'Leary v. Accretive Health,
Inc.,657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, the
court only grants summary judgment “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). That said, Rule 56 “mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery
and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In evaluating the
motions and the undisputed facts located in the parties'
Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Fact with respect to
each motion, the court is cognizant of its obligation to
construe all disputed and undisputed facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. See Schepers, 691 F.3d
at 913.

A.
Factual Background.

Plaintiff
was an inmate incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center
during the relevant time. [47] at ¶ 1. Defendant
Christopher Thompson was a Correctional Officer assigned to
Internal Affairs at Dixon. [47] at ¶ 2. Nedra Chandler
served as the Warden of Dixon during the relevant time. [47]
at ¶ 3.

In
November of 2012, plaintiff was moved into a cell with inmate
Milton Shepard. [47] at ¶ 15. On January 28, 2013,
plaintiff fought with Shepard during an altercation about
plaintiff's bottom bunk permit, which plaintiff testified
Shepard was upset about. [47] at ¶ 16; [51] at ¶ 1.
Plaintiff testified that he received twenty days in
segregation for fighting with Shepard. [47] at ¶ 17.

After
the January altercation, [plaintiff] was threatened by
Shepard. [51] at ¶ 5. Plaintiff testified that
“from a distance, he'd threaten me, he'd
threaten me up close, he would threaten me - officers heard
it, inmates heard it - and a lot of times, I'd just
ignore him and keep walking.” [47] at ¶ 12.
Plaintiff testified in response to questioning that he was
not “afraid” of Shepard, and that he was not
afraid of anyone in prison. [47] at ¶ 25. Shepard
testified that, after the January incident, he was
“upset” and “mad at Plaintiff” and
“wanted to hit him.” [51] at ¶ 6.

Plaintiff
testified that sometime after the January altercation he
wrote a letter to Officer Thompson, and in that letter,
stated that plaintiff's former cell mate was telling
other inmates that he was going to do something in the gym or
in the yard; plaintiff points to the full document. [47] at
¶ 18. In full, the letter provides as follows:

[page one]

3/13/13

Greetings, Mr. Thompson,

This is Eddie Myles #A-71068 in #58 Cell “01.”

I dropped a kite in the “Outgoing Mail Box” for
you. So, this is concerning the same “thing.”

Short, brief, and to the point!

Several guys I know have came up to “me” and
said; whenever you “see” your x-cellie, watch
“him” because he's “talking about what
he's gonna do to you, when he “catches you
right” over in the “gym.” So, be
“careful.” Or on that “yard.”

After hearing this: I naturally looked at the “yard and
gym” schedule. He's now in “31.”
I'm in #58. We have “yard together for sure,
” or at least while he's in “31”
anyway.

I'm not trying to get “shot” on the yard, or
“hurt.” I'm giving you my word that if I do
have to raise my hands at my x-cellie, I will do it
“defending myself.” I will try as best I can to
“keep” some “distance” between
us.” I just “wanted” you to know my
x-cellie is “talkin crazy, ” Hey.”
We'll “talk.”

[page two]

Between “us” I'd rather be in a
“2-Man” “Cell, ” but I'm OK
“Where I am” for now.

I would really appreciate it if I could get back to
“60” or “26”? But, if I can't
“I'm cool where I am.”

Plaintiff
also testified that he sent an identical letter to Warden
Chandler and placed it in her personal mailbox; he admits he
does not have a copy of the letter, and that he does not know
whether that letter was ever received by Warden Chandler.
[47] at ¶ 13; [51] at ¶¶ 8, 10. Warden
Chandler testified that she does not recall receiving
Myles' letter. [51] at ¶ ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.